July 12, 2011

Mordecai Lee, a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee political scientist, says "single-digit turnouts" are possible, which he thinks tend to skew more conservative than higher turnouts.

Single-digit turnout?! As they say around here, "this is what democracy looks like."

Though Tuesday's elections are Democratic primaries, Republicans can cross over and vote in them because Wisconsin's open primary law allows it.

Do you think they should? Or would that somehow be wrong?

Most political observers don't expect any of the fake Democrats to win primaries against the Republican senators' real Democratic challengers, though Lee said a couple of weeks ago that the real Democrats faced a real risk of losing. He said lesser-known candidates Moore and former Oshkosh Deputy Mayor Jessica King might be especially vulnerable. King is the real Democrat challenging Sen. Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac).

As Mrs. Stapleton said to Fred Clark (the Undemocratic Party District 14 candidate for senate), "it's a crime" that these recalls are happening at all. The cynical true purpose of these recall elections is to reverse the democratic expression of the voters in last November's general election. A vote for the so-called "fake" primary candidate tomorrow is a vote against the recall election itself - a waste of time and money and an insult to all Wisconsin citizens.

182 comments:

Ethics is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. Many are looking at these elections, so running a "fake" candidate is not unethical. Is running a "fake" candidate against some rule? I asked garage mahal that the other day.....

....crickets.

____________wv = "tvrot" A 20th century neurological and social malady first recorded in the mid-1950s.

Althouse, you are an obnoxious moron. Then again, so is Meade. It's not a crime to have a recall. In fact, it's all part of the Democratic process, something you "claim" to be for. If voters in WI want a recall, they are legally entitled to it.

Go back to taking shitty pictures of flowers and pretending you're not a conservative hack.

These are the checks and balances in our system..it is an open primary...for both sides. Recalls can are are being abused. Are you saying the original abuse of the recall is somehow a "lesser than" abuse of the system than running a protest candidate and voting for them?

Why not trust the system, instead of trying to maniputlate it. Why not let both the abusive recalls occur and let the protest candidates run and let the citizens decide?

Why is our first option always to rule out allowing the process to take place and trusting the us to figure it out? That is so "progressive" in its root belief that we can't handle it.

Am I the only person that thought it was nitpicking to call Fred Clark out on his telephone recorded slap or to report it...until I actually heard it? That is not the voice of someone joking, just frustrated and making a light threat...listen to it, the guy is sounds threatening and very intimidating. Tone is everything.Makes me wonder more about the Bradley/Prosser mix up.

It is appalling that the Wisconsin Republican Party isn't doing everything in its power to promote the "fake" candidates. They should be doing a full court press for every one, for just the reasons you stated.

I disagree strongly with the "open primary" idea. Who decided this was a good thing? Somehow I'm nearly certain it wasn't conservatives who pushed for open primaries.

Primaries are supposed to be for the political parties to chose their candidates, and why should anyone who isn't in the party have a say in that? Either join the party or make your own party. And who cares *how* a party you're not a part of chooses who they will endorse? If it's a cigar smoke filled back room or an open election?

Even holding garlic up isn't going to rid us of the vampire contagion.

I'll bet the winning ballot boxes are already stacked in the back room!

On the other hand?

If more than "single digits" show up ... they'll run out of ballots!

If that doesn't work?

They'll run out of pencils.

(Even though I'm not allowed to say Rupert Murdoch's name; I will say this: I admire his leadership! He saw a problem. And, he fired off all the journalists ... who thought they'd sqat "on the World" ... to undercut his leadership.

Where are they now?

And, will they ever get hired, again?

The smell of real fear ... begins when someone like Rupert Murdoch shows up. So far in Wisconsin? Poor Justice Prosser is accused of being the heavy-weight champ of choke-holds.

I want to see real choke-holds, ahead. Best way to then deliver a noogie.

Me neither, I’ve never crossed over to vote in a DFL primary even when the Republican candidate had no real challenger. IMO primaries should be (a) conducted at the expense of the political parties and not the taxpayers who (b) should have the right to limit them only to their members.

A NEW Pathetic Voice speaks up….the SMALL Pathetic Voice was bad enough, but the New One, with its angry over-the-top name calling is worse…still I imagine the new Pathetic voice doesn’t have its own blog….mayhap it could start one where it could spew its hatred and vitriol on fewer folks.

Since I was old enough to understand primaries (some time last year, in fact), I have never understood why it's allowed for anyone to vote in a particular party's primary.

Well years ago people mostly grew up in either an (R) or a (D) family, right down to which newspaper you read. Then came to challenge to this Coke v. Pepsi paradigm and the vaunted "independent" came to the fore. How are registered "independents" supposed to vote? Should they even vote in primaries? Here in California, I'm still not allowed to vote for certain candidates in certain primaries because I'm not a party member. And I'm OK with that.

Ren said...Althouse, you are an obnoxious moron. Then again, so is Meade. It's not a crime to have a recall. In fact, it's all part of the Democratic process, something you "claim" to be for. If voters in WI want a recall, they are legally entitled to it.

Go back to taking shitty pictures of flowers and pretending you're not a conservative hack.

7/12/11 11:53 AM

Besides the fact that your comment simply identifies you as an asshole tell us if the republicans survive the recall election intact and the democrats lose one or two of the gang of fourteen, will you be respectful of the will of the people? I doubt it.

The usual objections to open primaries do not apply in this case, because there's an additional way people might want to vote, which is to vote in opposition to the entire notion of a recall.

If I'm simply opposed to the idea of a recall election, how can I register that opinion?

1. Don't sign a recall petition. The overwhelming majority of Wisconsin voters did not sign recall petitions. Yet enough did do so that the recalls were authorized.

2. Don't vote in a recall election. It looks like the overwhelming majority of Wisconsin voters will not vote today. Yet, a majority of the tiny minority that does vote will determine the outcome in each election.

3. Vote for a "fake" candidate. This tactic, and only this tactic, stops a recall attempt in its tracks. And when a "fake" candidate's campaign consists of declarations like this:

"Your vote for Isaac Weix in the July 12th primary election IS a vote for Sheila!",

then there's nothing "fake" or "stealthy" about the candidacy. It's a perfectly clear alternative that is not otherwise available to voters who want to put a stop to what they may perceive as idiocy.

What's fake about these candidates? Would they not rather win than lose? Seriously, what's fake about them?

As for open primaries, the federal constitution and probably all state constitutions are silent on the issue of party. Parties exist, are even vital to the mechanics of coalition building, but they have no legitimate official standing with the government.

So unless the party is running and (especially) funding the primary, then the closed primary is fraud.

My folks are in district 32 and plan to vote for Kapanke.Mom told me they early voted in the dem primary.They voted for Schilling - because they were told by some campaign operative that if they voted for Smith (the pseudo dem) they wouldn't be allowed to vote for Kapanke in the recall.Mom is 100% convinced of this. Since they already voted, I just let it go.

Synova said...I disagree strongly with the "open primary" idea. Who decided this was a good thing? Somehow I'm nearly certain it wasn't conservatives who pushed for open primaries.

Your tone reminds me of the franchise nature of political parties. We do think it "wrong" for non members to partake in the franchise. At the risk of conjoining two or more Althouse comment threads, I submit that something akin to this sentiment is behind many people's objections to changes in the "franchise" of marriage: marriage is for members only. If we expand the franchise to include same sex couples, wouldn't we all feel cheated if straight people started marrying each other willy-nilly who weren't actually in love, i.e., weren't true believers in the institution as it has traditionaly been defined?

Traditionalguy, I guess your description of "choke-hold" on its face would have been impossible for Justice Prosser to do. He's short. The lady's got him by about 7" ...

So, besides Bradley LYING about "choke-hold" in the first place ...

I'll disregard that.

In my yoot, the choke-hold led to the noogie. Your head was inside the vise. And, both your ears got covered with arm flesh. Then, with the other hand. And, the "choke-holdee" bent double at the waist ... a noogie was given. And, then you were let go. So you could go on with your day. No bruising was involved, here.

But if you want to use your interpretation of a choke-hold ... designed as martial arts. To kill people ... Justice Prosser would have had to stand on a soap-box ... just to reach Bradley's neck.

Instead of getting Bradley down ... Bradley would have had an advantage if she just jumped up. Forcing Justice Prosser to let go. You could be injured if your legs no longer touch the floor. Or the top of your soap-box. He could have been tossed off her back ... the same way a pony can decide the rider no longer needs a comfortable seat.

Meanwhile, this election "could have" some bad outcomes in store for the democraps? Lots of union folk might not come back from the beach ... or the lake front ... or Vegas ... to cast a vote, here?

Whatever. Only the voting folk will make an impact. Unless there are some full boxes of votes ... that will cancel out those votes ... collected at the polls, today.

Off topic:

Did you know in New York City, where there's going to be a special election in Anthony Weiner's district ... Old Mayor Koch came out and TOLD PEOPLE to vote for the REPUBLICAN! How good is that? The story is in the NY Post.

Ethics is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. Many are looking at these elections, so running a "fake" candidate is not unethical. Is running a "fake" candidate against some rule?

Not against the rules, but also not ethical. If Walker had more transparent with on his proposed CB changes - either campaigning on it or introducing it in a manner which allowed time for public debate and testimony...instead of how he proceeded, there'd be no recalls today - it'd be just another day in politics. Yawn.

"As for open primaries, the federal constitution and probably all state constitutions are silent on the issue of party. Parties exist, are even vital to the mechanics of coalition building, but they have no legitimate official standing with the government.

So unless the party is running and (especially) funding the primary, then the closed primary is fraud."

This. If a party wants to select their candidate at a convention, attended by only party memebers, fine. But if they expect to use the funds and the mechanisms of government, I demand that I get a vote.

In 1840 the American Whigs made the mistake of "reaching out" to the Democrats by including John Tyler (too) on their ticket. When General Harrison promptly died, that wound up with Tyler seeeking refuge with the Democrats, and the Whigs called a convention and formally read him out of the party.So, back then anyway, parties were still considered private organizations rather than public utilities.

Recalls have not previously been used just because you dislike the outcome of the last election. "single digit" turnouts are a very good reason why they shouldnt' be. In fact, their ought to be a damn good reason to run a recall election, since it costs the taxpayer money and forces people to go out and vote AGAIN when they already did it at the appropriate time.

I think there aught to be stricter laws about when an off season election can be held.

As far as I'm concerned, primaries are to select the top two candidates for the general election. Party has nothing to do with it. If a party wants to close their election to the general public, they can damn well run, and fund, their primary themselves.

Voting isn't a test! You're not graded on being right or wrong! You're just one person fucking lucky to be in America. And, a citizen.

I dunno Carol. There are otherwise reasonable people here who strongly argue for things like voting "for" a candidate and then stating that what they really meant was to vote "against" another. Call me old fashioned but I never learned that nuanced tactic in civics. I learned that we should seek out and always vote for something we believed in. Otherwise it's either just passive aggression or cowardice, which I, having long suffered to overcome in myself, cannot respect.

Green Bay Press Gazette online this morning says turnout is very slow. Also quoted several voters as annoyed that there was an election. Were they annoyed at the primary, or at the recall in general? It did not say.

Not against the rules, but also not ethical. If Walker had more transparent with on his proposed CB changes - either campaigning on it or introducing it in a manner which allowed time for public debate and testimony...instead of how he proceeded, there'd be no recalls today - it'd be just another day in politics. Yawn. Laughable. There was a RECORD AMOUNT of public debate and testimony. These recalls are not about the amount of debate, but the results. You really have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

If this was a regular election, I wouldn't even consider crossing over. I figure whoever the other side wants to represent them is none of my business. OTOH, if the other side just wants to do elections like the '72 Olympic Russian basketball team, then I might rethink that position.

Someone is asked why he chose chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla, when offered a choice between the two. Here are some possible answers:

1. I prefer chocolate to vanilla.

2. I dislike vanilla.

3. I like chocolate best of all.

All three describe the exact same choice. #1 is tautological. #2 allows for the possibility that the person prefers, say, strawberry to chocolate. #3 implies that the person will always choose chocolate.

"I figure whoever the other side wants to represent them is none of my business."

I don't have a "side". Seriously. Though it is true that I vote Republican much more often than Democrat, I am not affiliated with the Republican party. I am an independent and I don't appreciate being told by the closed party crowd that I can't participate when the government is holding an election.

Herman says: The smell of real fear ... begins when someone like Rupert Murdoch shows up. I guess she wants our elections to be full of wire taping, paying off the police, false impersonations, obtaining medical and financial records illegally, rather then just mild reporting on the cost of wine drunk by Paul Ryan. When a right-wing voter wishes for a real choke hold in the persona of Murdoch, I realize just how sane and necessary this re-call election is.

What's fake about these candidates? Would they not rather win than lose? Seriously, what's fake about them?

Democrats are having a primary to see which Democrat they will put up against the incumbent Republican in the recall election. Some Republicans have entered these open Democrat primaries in an effort to abort the process.

Agree or disagree with the tactic, it is fair to call those Republicans "'fake' Democrats." They hope to win as Democrats when they are not, in fact, Democrats.

"Protest" Democrats sounds better, but is actually more ambiguous. Hearing that term by itself, would you think the person was a Republican or a Democrat? "Fake" sounds insulting, but the meaning is far more clear.

Oy vey. I nearly forgot the reason! But thanks to Original Mike's 12:53 PM post ... It struck me again ...

This is UNION induced ... to "switch off" the State Senate ... It's like a war campaign. Where the end result is to "make" the Madison Rotunda "safe again" for democraps. So they don't have to be flee-baggers! It's like sending troops out to conquer the hill. To give you a better vantage point where you can send your snipers.

Usually a low turn means that only the angry or really motivated people turn out. People promoting school referendums have found out that they need to have a special vote. If a school referendum is during a general election, it is much less likely to pass.

Not sure how that applies here. Proably the few people that are voting will vote for the real Demcorat.

In August, you would think the Republicans would want a large turnout, to overcome the angry unionists (who are always very well organized and funded).

Open primaries in the South are a remnant of the Solid South, in which the Democratic Primary was the real election. Nobody except black Republicans ran in the general election. The first time I voted the Democratic Party in Alabama had the symbol of a White Rooster and had the slogan of 'White Supremacy for the Right'. I handed out bumper stickers for Goldwater.

Hello, this is Barbara Lyons from Wisconsin Right to Life. I’m calling today to let you know that you will be receiving an absentee ballot application for the upcoming recall elections in the mail in the next few days. These recall elections are very important and voting absentee will ensure that your vote is counted and that we can maintain a pro-family, pro-life state senate. We hope that we can count on you to complete that application and send it back to us within 7 days.”‘link

@garage, I don't understand why you presume that the robocalls are from the organization they claim they're from. Seems to me that the people who are most likely to believe what "Wisconsin Right to Life" tells them are more likely to vote for the "protest" Democrat than the real one.

Understood, Chuck. My original point was that I don't accept the concept of a closed primary in any case. In this particular case, in the course of discussion, I realized I was taking the charge of "fake Democrat" (i.e. someone who proclaims, "I am a Democrat", when they are not) at face value. However, considering who's been making that charge (cough, garage, cough), I realize I may have presumed too much.

it's perfectly fine to disagree with Althouse, As an avowed conservative I do quite often. However I'm convinced that her logic is indisputable, irrefutable......Which is why I come here to test my own ideas against those that are presented here. If I just want to surround myself with people who agree with me that's easy. (conservative talk radio) or experience the loathing of those with whom I disagree (NPR) I have that choice. The reason our system is, and will continue to be broken is that we have been reduced to elected officials, and their supporters who only know how to shout at each other. While It's true that Ive learned to stop caring, I still need to know what I'm not caring about.

Levi S.....the biggest thing I hate is what you say....in the general public, there is no longer a debate. It is just yelling.

Go to any thread on the Wisc State Journal, Milw JS, or Mpls Star Tribune. Of course I am highly bias, but the left seems to be the worst. No debating, just name calling. And all the goofy conspiracy accusations. I have never witnessed such paranoia before.

An election for a candidate differs from referenda such a yes/no ballot measure. A no vote on a referendum does not enable that measure to go forward. A no voter can easily divorce his or herself from the position even if he or she is outvoted.

A “no vote” in a choice between two candidates actually casts a nod for the lesser of the two evils. On paper, such a negative voter is indistinguishable from an enthusiastic supporter's vote.

Such a negative voter cannot easily divorce his or herself from his or her negative choice because his or her vote was electorally indistinguishable from a supporters.

A negative voter knowingly obfuscates the decision at hand, and I, for one, believe this civilly unethical.

Barbara Lyons, the executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, said Tuesday that automated calls that went out on Monday to residents in nine recall districts were not voter suppression calls.

At least one politically minded blog charged that the calls were intended to convince people not to vote today in primaries around the state.

But Lyons said the intent of the calls was to make people aware of the upcoming recall elections on Aug. 9 and 16.

Here is the script of the call, as provided by Wisconsin Right to Life:

"Hello, this is Barbara Lyons from Wisconsin Right to Life. I'm calling today to let you know that you will be receiving an absentee ballot application for the upcoming recall elections in the mail in the next few days. These recall elections are very important and voting absentee will ensure that your vote is counted and that we can maintain a pro-family, pro-life state senate. We hope that we can count on you to complete that application and send it back to us within 7 days.

"Thank you for your support. Wisconsin Right to Life can be reached by calling (877) 855-5007."

Gotta say it sounds like voter suppression to me, though she may be supressing her own voters if she's telling the truth. How can you robocall people who are going to get absentee ballots? How do they have any idea who has requested an absentee ballot?

Democrats are having a primary to see which Democrat they will put up against the incumbent Republican in the recall election.

Are they? Is Wisconsin limited to only 2 parties? Can only Democrats initiate and put up a candidate against an incumbent Republican in a recall election? Does the law then disenfranchise the Green Party, the Constitution Party, etc., etc.?

No. A recall election is not a partisan election. A recall election provides a mechanism whereby the electorate can remove a member of the legislature or executive branch if they are dissatisfied with their actions. Why they are dissatisfied with their actions is not relevant. A group of Tea Party movement members can initiate a recall election against a Republican because they don't think the incumbent is conservative enough as legitimately as a group of Democrats can initiate such an election because they think he's too conservative. Or, substitute "Socialist", "Democrat" and "liberal" for "Tea Party", "Republican" and "conservative".

This is why this HAS to be an open primary - either that, or you run a complete set of closed primaries for every single party - including the incumbent's, and put them all on the challenge ballot. The law does not and cannot privilege one party over another in a recall election. It cannot presume why the incumbent is being opposed.

Moore holds a Bachelor’s degree in English education and political science from UW-Stevens Point and a Master’s degree from UW-River Falls. She is divorced with no children.

Weix owns T and S Hardware store with his brother. According to his website for an earlier election, he is working on a Master’s in Business Administration through UW-Eau Claire and holds a degree in business from UW-Stout. He is married and has two daughters.

He serves as a gunnery sergeant with a Marine Reserves unit in Madison and was on active duty from 1993 to 1998.

chickenlittle: Such a negative voter cannot easily divorce his or herself from his or her negative choice because his or her vote was electorally indistinguishable from a supporters.

Agreed. But I don't follow what you wrote next:

A negative voter knowingly obfuscates the decision at hand,

How can someone "knowingly obfuscate" a choice that is "electorally indistinguishable" from that of someone with different preferences but who cast the same vote? The "fault," if it were a fault, is in the fact that the voter is forced to choose between a limited set of options.

Finally, I simply don't understand how you get from any of that to this:

I, for one, believe this civilly unethical.

If you're upset about the "obfuscation," why wouldn't you welcome a clarification along the lines of "I voted against B more than I voted for A?"

@Chip S asked: How can someone "knowingly obfuscate" a choice that is "electorally indistinguishable" from that of someone with different preferences but who cast the same vote?

Because the outcome of the vote is interpreted by the winner. The winner says: look how many supporters I have instead of hmm, I wonder how many supports I have for my intentions and how many just didn’t like my opponent. That is the deliberate obfuscation introduced by the negative voter.

The "fault," if it were a fault, is in the fact that the voter is forced to choose between a limited set of options.

Forced?

Finally, I simply don't understand how you get from any of that to this: "I, for one, believe this civilly unethical."

Would civically unethical be better? Elsewhere I noted that ethics involves doing the right thing when no one is looking. A voting booth is private. According to my definition, a negative voter is not doing the right thing because they introduce the uncertainty factor into the outcome. This what I mean by obfuscation. There's also the continual need to for a negative voter to carefully distance him or herself from ongoing issues which they never intended to vote for by voting against their opponent. After a while, it becomes convoluted logic until another electoral event comes along to erase the chalkboard.

IF elections were a test. You'd fill out a Scantron sheet. And, the machine would "beep" when "it" thought your answer was wrong. Then, a professor would come out from behind the curtain. And, stamp your forehead with a grade.

All I know ... back in the days when I stood in line to vote ... was that I had no idea who other people were voting. Nor did I care.

What mesmerizes me about our system is that it's like taking water ... till you learn ... you're looking at the ocean. Our votes "smooth out." And, if enough of us are voting ... As Hugh Hewett said back in 2004 ... our elections can't be stolen from us. By "us" I thought he meant ALL OF US. USA! Yaay.

"Some right-to-life group is running robocalls telling voters not to vote, that an abstentee ballot are in the mail."

And then posted what the caller actually said:

"Hello, this is Barbara Lyons from Wisconsin Right to Life. I’m calling today to let you know that you will be receiving an absentee ballot application for the upcoming recall elections in the mail in the next few days. These recall elections are very important and voting absentee will ensure that your vote is counted and that we can maintain a pro-family, pro-life state senate. We hope that we can count on you to complete that application and send it back to us within 7 days."

So we can see that:

a) They did not say "not to vote" as you claimb) The did not say they were sending an "abstentee ballot" as you claim, but an application for same.

So are you a liar? Or an idiot?

The also address the "upcoming recall elections".

Really you would have to be a fucking moron to not vote today based on this call. Then again, you know your people.

@Carol Herman: I'm working on a theory to explain why we seem to be evolving towards a 50/50 outcome in most elections. No more landslides. A Francis Fukuyama-esque "The End Of Elections." I'll let you know first when I've finished. :)________wv = immemmet. And forthcoming.

But Lyons said the intent of the calls was to make people aware of the upcoming recall elections on Aug. 9 and 16.

Here is the script of the call, as provided by Wisconsin Right to Life:

"Hello, this is Barbara Lyons from Wisconsin Right to Life. I'm calling today to let you know that you will be receiving an absentee ballot application for the upcoming recall elections in the mail in the next few days. These recall elections are very important and voting absentee will ensure that your vote is counted and that we can maintain a pro-family, pro-life state senate. We hope that we can count on you to complete that application and send it back to us within 7 days.

"Thank you for your support. Wisconsin Right to Life can be reached by calling (877) 855-5007."

Gotta say it sounds like voter suppression to me, though she may be supressing her own voters if she's telling the truth. How can you robocall people who are going to get absentee ballots? How do they have any idea who has requested an absentee ballot?

Sounds fishy.

It wouldn't sound fishy if you could read. They are not sending a ballot, they are sending an application for a ballot.

For your information Rupert Murdoch just showed up and sliced and diced his own paper ... to rid himself of a staff that thought it would "squat on the world" ... and snap at him till he caves.

They picked the wrong boss to work for!

And, what Rupert Murdoch DID was supply his readers with contents they wanted to read! Maybe, you think we should just go over and kill all the British readers, to "solve the problem?"

I don't care how "The World" got to its news, either!

Christopher Hitchens says ... he was taught ... when he was a cub reporter ... to take a partner with him ... when he stuck his foot in the door of some bereaved person's house.

Hitchens added that people were so polite, he'd be invited in for tea. So he could go to the kitchen and sit down. While his partner went to the mantle and grabbed off all the displayed personal photos!

So lets say democrats retake the Senate in the recall election. What is there left to vote on from now until 2012? Not a budget. All of the new democrats will have to run again in the real election in 2012.

Democrats are having a primary to see which Democrat they will put up against the incumbent Republican in the recall election. Some Republicans have entered these open Democrat primaries in an effort to abort the process.

That's not really correct. It's more accurate to say that the State of Wisconsin is having a primary election to see which candidate will represent the Democratic party in the recall election.

@Carol Herman: I'm working on a theory to explain why we seem to be evolving towards a 50/50 outcome in most elections. No more landslides. A Francis Fukuyama-esque "The End Of Elections." I'll let you know first when I've finished.

Though Tuesday's elections are Democratic primaries, Republicans can cross over and vote in them because Wisconsin's open primary law allows it.

The primaries are Democratic primaries. That means that only Democrats can run. The "open" part describes who can vote in them, not who can run in them. Mind you, you don't have to be a "real" Democrat to run in them. I've seen no legal arguments against the "fake"/"protest" Democrats. Also, the "fake" Democrats are not hiding their intentions, so it would be inaccurate to call them "stealthy." However, "fake" is accurate. If there is a word that implies both "fake" and "non-stealthy," that would be a more accurate and fair description. Since I don't know what that word is, I will continue to defend the use of "fake."

If the term fake seems biased to you when it in fact extremely accurate, you have to ask yourself why you recoil against an accurate word. I can't help you there.

As to the "test quality" ... elections can't be a "test" because if it was you'd get CHOICE "E" ... none of the above.

Since it's not a test you're stuck with people's choices ...

And, to co-opt Chip S @ 1L11 PM ... IF you own an ice cream store, you better have more than two flavors for customers to choose from.

Voting booths aren't ice cream stores, either.

And, in America everyone who votes is free to choose. So, I'm not surprised that outcomes come in close to 50/50. We are NOT a "one size fits all country!"

When Kloppenhoppen trotted close to Justice Prosser I was so surprised! (Because? Well, because I wouldn't have picked her. But I do know enough that it doesn't give her a million-to-one shot advantage.)

I actually learned a lot when my son was young. And, the only thing I needed the menu for was to cover my face ... so he wouldn't see me rolling my eye-balls. Whatever did take him so long to order an entree at I-Hop. (Which grandma called U-Haul.)

But my son LOVES reading menus. Me? Nah. Not so much. I can make a decision before walking into the store.

Voting booths?

Did you ever wonder what the people were doing behind the curtain ... when they just didn't come right out, again?

The idiot claim seems incontrovertible. The liar is very possibly true but there are other possible explanations, especially granting the idiot claim. Idiots can also be lazy, careless, intellectually dishonest hacks. But then again, liar works, too.

I think the hyperpolarity is a big thing. Now, people find the other side so offensive, that they would never consider voting for him/her, even if he is by far the best candidate. So the parties have to fight for those 10% that pay no attendion and decide late in the process on who to vote for.

That is also why a third party often does well. Jesse Ventura did not have a built in enemy base like a Republican or Democrat does.

@Carol Herman: Chill. I think Sofa King grabbed my entire text which included the "@carol herman." Note his italics.*_______*an Italian friend of mine resented the use of that word to describe a particular type font. I don't thing he was up on the word origins.

Curious George said..."'garage mahal said... LOL." So are you a liar? Or an idiot?'"

He is both.

He has proven himself an idiot time and time again by tossing out links that either say exactly the opposite of what he wants them to say, or easily trace back to some opinion or outright lie some other yawping fool published.

He has proven himself a liar time and time again by continuing to cite the same links after they have been debunked. He knows that they are untrue, yet continues to disseminate them.

The LOL response - he doesn't care whether he is caught in a lie or not. His goal is to disseminate them, not defend them.

Serious times. Serious issues. Garage, and a lot of other spoiled children determined to suckle on the government teat, think any exposure of their tactics is to laugh about.

Wisconsin voters are now about to settle in the next few weeks what started with the fleeing legislators and continued with the attempted disruption of the legislative process. The core issue affects not just Wisconsin but the nation at large. It started in 2000, has been building since then, and is now coming to a head.

Simply put, will the general electorate allow the losing political alignment to operate outside the legislative process in order to overturn or suborn the outcome of any (or every) general election they lose?

The liars and idiots - the shitheads like garage - are not smart enough to understand where that road leads.

Whatever is not expressly forbidden is permitted, even laudatory and admirable if it might help your side (see fleeing the state to avoid a quorum). Traditions, ethics and honor are out the window now.

The Kopper asked for a state-funded recount because it was available. There is a procedure for recall, therefore recall away.Unilateral disarmament would be silly, so if there are open primaries, vote as the law allows.

I just got back from the Gateway Technical College campus in downtown Racine....they are celebrating their 100th anniversary and Scott Walker was scheduled to speak at 3 p.m.

For about an hour before the speech there was a motley group of about 150-200 people protesting on the sidewalk. When I left they were leaving their signs in a pile to go into the building to boo Walker.

I overheard the leader of the group saying that it was a public event and they all had the right to go into the hall to protest. I wanted to stick around to see if nay heads would get cracked but I had to get back to my office.

B) I used to get applications for absentee ballots from the Republican party. I find this annoying and ineffective, but not any more illegel than canvessing to see who Democrats are, then calling them on election day and offering a ride to the polls.

Some right-to-life group is running robocalls telling voters not to vote, that an abstentee ballot are in the mail.

"Hello, this is Barbara Lyons from Wisconsin Right to Life. I'm calling today to let you know that you will be receiving an absentee ballot application for the upcoming recall elections in the mail in the next few days. These recall elections are very important and voting absentee will ensure that your vote is counted and that we can maintain a pro-family, pro-life state senate. We hope that we can count on you to complete that application and send it back to us within 7 days.

"Thank you for your support. Wisconsin Right to Life can be reached by calling (877) 855-5007."

Whether or not they ever send an application, GM is still lying when he claims that people were told not to vote and that they were told an absentee ballot was in the mail.

Chuck66, Is T&S Hardware in Elmwood the same hardware that does those very clever ads over the Menominee radio station lampooning various political actions such as Obamacare, collective bargaining, etc? If it is, Weix should go into advertising. "Das Spadana".

If there is a word that implies both "fake" and "non-stealthy," that would be a more accurate and fair description.

I think the word you are looking for is false.

@Sofa King: Thanks for the link. Does that theorem discuss the role of hyperpolarity?

Not specifically. However, a plausible theory is that the closer the parties' positions are to each other, the more fierce the competition for the titular median voter, and the more the actual differences between the parties must be exaggerated. Personally I believe it is a product of individual identification. A voter close to the median might subconsciously recognize that his counterpart on the other side is not all that far away on the wider ideological spectrum, and so he exaggerates the differences for the purpose of rationalizing his choice.

Over here in Western Wisconsin, Isaac Weix's radio ads are worth the whole circus. "I've been a Democrat for about a month, and now all I want to do is raise your taxes and cozy up to the unions!" (Or something like that.)

Dude, we already determined "idiot" but now I'm questioning it. The caller didn't say "You don’t need to worry. Your absentee ballot is in the mail.” You made that up. The said an application was in the mail, and hoped that the receivier would fill it out and return it.

It's too late to use absentee ballots. I concede the call didn't say "not to vote", but it's clear what the intent of the call is. Uh, not if they are for the RECALL elections, which are next month. Which is what they were for. How do we know? Because they said "the RECALL elections". The only thing unclear is YOUR intentions. And that's because we don't know if you are a liar or an idiot. Will you please clear that up?

dbp said...I vote for idiot, a true liar would have removed the earlier comment.

Not necessarily. If you do not care whether it is the truth - your intent is to spread a lie - you won't feel any need to defend it. That's irrelevant. Might spin in the wind a bit like garage is doing, but you'd never address the core lies. The goal is to get the lie out there and force your opponent to try to defend against it. If they bite, the longer they defend against it the more set the issue becomes in the public mind as a different take rather than a clear cut lie from one side.

See Alinsky Rules for Radicals.

garage may on may not be subscribing to Alinsky tactics here. Alinsky also depends on the marching moron crowd the left cultivates to run with the lie. I'd say that given his last few comments, that describes him.

BTW: Using the marching morons to run with the lie allows the originators plausible denial. They may even give a ersatz apology - 'sorry you took it that way', or 'sorry you misunderstood' but never retract. As long as the never retract, and even if they do, the garage mahal types will carry the lie along.

Uh, recall elections started today. The calls targeted registered Democrats, and the calls started days before this election. What does this tell you Einstein? But I'm supposed to believe a right to life org cares about registered Democrats enough to make calls alerting them that theu are sending them absentee ballot applications to vote? Whatever dude.

So, chickenlittle, what do you think of my comment? The whole premise of "false Democrat" is false as long as they don't call themselves Democrats. The Democrats have no privelege in this primary over any other party.

Weix ran against Harsdorf in the primary last year and lost. I don't think his "weixforassembly" website is still functioning. But he regularly runs ads for his hardware store that tweak lefties. There was one in which he referred to the store having a Deficit Spending Sale, or something. "No coupons necessary. All you have to do is bring your grandkids, and let them pay for everything!" He also regularly pokes fun at Greenists.

Open primaries - you will generally find these in a state where one party dominates, and especially when there is a machine around. The open primaries let Democrats, er, make that "members of one party" pick what they perceive as the easiest candidate to beat from the other side.

Might just backfire on the "members of one party" this time. We'll see.

Uh, recall elections started today. The calls targeted registered Democrats, and the calls started days before this election. What does this tell you Einstein? But I'm supposed to believe a right to life org cares about registered Democrats enough to make calls alerting them that theu are sending them absentee ballot applications to vote? Whatever dude.

Wow, I was leaning "liar"...but now am back to "idiot". Because you don't know the difference between a primary election and the recall election. They are two separate things. No one will be recalled today.

Now we still have this outstanding issue of "illegal"...did you forget. Or would you just like to?

And we can add "The calls targeted registered Democrats." WI has no such thing as "registered Democrats." Or "registered Republicans". Did you make that shit up too?

It is irrelevant what the 10th Amendment says in relation to marriage. Our unalienable rights to associate, to marry, to exercise religion, to have sex, etc... existed prior to the foundation of the governments and government are without power to modify, alter, or abolish unalienable rights. The Supreme Court in Meister v Moore affirmed that marriage is a common right and all marriage statutes are merely directory (you cannot be penalized for not following them).

"Marraige is a statutory construct to legitimaize the production of the citizenry..."

"Statutory marriage" is a statutory construct; common law marriage is entirely different than statutory marriage and does not carry the disabilities that come from having the state grant permission to marry and assume a role as the superior party of interest.

"and gay marraige does not fit that category."

'Gay marriage' currently does not fit in many states statutory marriage scheme, but that is changing. 'Gay marriage' is not recognized under common law marriage.

"Natural law is where rights are derived from god."

True. What if one firmly believes and has modern scripture in which God commands His children to engage in polygamy/plural marriage. Can plural marriage not be easily derived from the combined exercise of our unalienable God given rights.

"Statutory law is where rights are given by man."

Statutory law can only give man government granted privileges which can be revoked or modified at any time. We commonly call these civil rights and they are the sole purview in America of recently freed black slaves, their posterity and others similarly situated (14th Amendment) who cannot claim unalienable rights.

"The Declaration of Independence cautioned against any law against the law of nature, and I think "gay marraige is the perfect example of that, as YY equals nothing."

I am in shock at the bigotry I see here towards polygamy/plural marriage and 'gay statutory marriage(civil unions).

What right does any person claim on this board to use their individual power to deny any American their full measure of liberty? I do not have any such power or right and neither do you. If we don't have it and can't do it individually then millions of us cannot band together and deny other American the full measure of their liberty.

The primaries are Democratic primaries. That means that only Democrats can run.

Can you cite the Wisconsin law that privileges the Democratic party in these primaries vs. the Socialist Party, the Constitution Party or any other parties that may exist in Wisconsin? Can you cite the Wisconsin law that says that this is a partisan primary at all? See my comment of 2:00 PM.

Unless Wisconsin law says differently - and disenfranchises all parties besides the Democrats to run against the Republican - the recally elections are not one party against another (to the exclusion of all others), it's an incumbent against the winner of a all-comers primary. The Libertarian Party has just as much right to run against a GOP incumbent because he's too much of a big-government RINO as the Democrats do because he's too conservative. The recall election is non-partisan - it has to be - so the primary must be also.